Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
Are they giving him any credit for the $300k keeping Shute Shield on TV?
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk
More specifically, he's only talking about three Shute Shield clubs.
He's just a rent-a-quote with an agenda, just like Bob Dwyer or Campo. He actually does his argument a disservice by attributing lower Bledisloe crowds to angst in clubland, because it a patently ridiculous thing to say.
.
I didn't play club in Australia and so don't have a dog in the fight.
Few questions though:
Few questions though:
- I'm told around 65% of Super players come from Shute clubs and 30% come from Brissy Premiership. Is this right within 10% or so?
- I understand Shute clubs are pretty much all in the financial shitter and are under pressure from collapsing numbers in colts etc. Is that right?
- If 1 and 2 are right, what is the plan for generating the 15 a side talent to go into NRC and Super teams outside of viva 7s outside of the odd spend out west?
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
I think the plan is to pick superstars at 14,and focus on them through various koala clubs until they are ready to be paid at 19 or 20.
kiap
Steve Williams (59)
Matt, perhaps the reason you didn't play club rugby is because you played school rugby? I only played a very short stint of club rugby because at the time if you played for the school, you didn't play club. So I joined up after leaving school.
But I suspect that neither of our personal anecdotes are directly relevant; not leading to a playing career of any note, and also in the past by at least a decade—more likely two. Well, at least in my case.
The school/club thing is worth mentioning, though, because school rugby is a major piece of the puzzle in this discussion. Take a look at this summary of Cheika's Wallaby squad of 31 that played in the RWC finals and the sort of schools they were at before moving into their rugby careers.
NSW: (13)
4 GPS
2 CAS
1 ISA
3 SHS in Syd
3 NSW Country
QLD: (14)
10 GPS
1 AIC
2 SHS in Bris
1 QLD Country
ACT: (1)
NZ: (3)
Getting this data is much easier than for the Supe. But needless to say, virtually half the Wallaby squad were GPS reps and most of the rest also went to private schools.
So surely this means we need more ARU grants to top up the money to GPS schools!! ... I mean, who developed most of these players?
Okay, sarcasm off for a moment. We need the opposite of that - more funding outside the leafy suburbs with private schools and established clubs (many of us on this forum come from these places, and I don't exclude myself from this). The same clear sight should be applied to the Shute Shield as to GPS schools.
I don't think anyone would argue that club rugby, the Shute Shield competition itself, (or indeed private school rugby) is not important and beneficial to the game in this country. They all need some money to survive and continue - no problem. If Pulver didn't think so the ARU wouldn't have stumped up for the Shute TV coverage.
But there still needs to be a clear differentiation between the Shute Shield competition, and the genuine grass roots. Same goes for Qld Premier Rugby. To paraphrase another poster of this parish, to suggest that premier clubs are taking random mugs off the streets and turning them into professional players, is wrong.
The mainstay of what develops the top players is the pathways that lead to the premier clubs — from junior clubs, schools (yes, including private schools who produce elite schoolboys) to the academy programs and elite training programs. The premier clubs are receiving professional athletes who are being subsidised for them.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
This is the key part of it isn't it.
What role do Premier clubs have in getting players that have come from schools, age group rep sides, colts etc ready for pro rugby.
As I understand the ARU funding which is now gone was meant to be earmarked for player development - ie to get players ready for pro rugby. Training etc. Most of it was instead spent on player salaries (including in kind).
So while clubs were paying their semi-pro players better, aiming to improve their own squads and continuing the club rugby spending arms war, they weren't actually improving the development of the players to get them ready for the pros.
So the ARU now relies on he Super rugby (EPS etc), academies and age group rep teams to develop players seen to be potential pros.
--------------------------
I obviously have no real idea - is the above a fair enough summation of the last couple of years?
The biggest challenge is making sure the opportunity exists for kids to play rugby in the first place. It doesn't really matter in what competition. The pathway is then there in one way or another for those who are good enough to make it all the way.
Kids playing rugby are both what produces the future stars of the game and the future fans of the game (and the next generation to have kids and get them playing rugby).
There definitely seems to be a general reduction in the number of kids playing organised sport (particularly after the early age groups). I have only heard anecdotal evidence but even cricket where interest in booming in things like the Big Bash are struggling for junior numbers and hybrid games involving less players have started to be introduced particularly in regional areas to keep competitions viable.
As the pinnacle of the game becomes more professional it is only natural that that will continue down the chain to younger age groups and the difference in size, speed and ability of the elite players and the casual players will widen (which tends to force the casual players out of the game).
Kids playing rugby are both what produces the future stars of the game and the future fans of the game (and the next generation to have kids and get them playing rugby).
There definitely seems to be a general reduction in the number of kids playing organised sport (particularly after the early age groups). I have only heard anecdotal evidence but even cricket where interest in booming in things like the Big Bash are struggling for junior numbers and hybrid games involving less players have started to be introduced particularly in regional areas to keep competitions viable.
As the pinnacle of the game becomes more professional it is only natural that that will continue down the chain to younger age groups and the difference in size, speed and ability of the elite players and the casual players will widen (which tends to force the casual players out of the game).
Kiap - I didn't play club here because I was in London (London French RFC)
Clearly there's a connection from mini rugby, through school, Club, NRC, Super Rugby etc etc. It will vary, but for most players they will have a lot of development at club level either before or even during Super Rugby stint. So club is an critical link in that chain for those who go on to higher honours, and also for a lot of very good players who don't.
Shute shield has been the only FTA live rugby in Australia and the clubs have paid for it. The ARU now stepping in here (and with what strings attached?) isn't the same as supporting club rugby. It's also only $300k
Strewthcobber -
Assuming this player payment is widespread and more than a Pulver hearsay, what you've written above doesn't necessarily make sense.
What would be one of the best ways to enable a player to train like a pro and develop? Pay them.
How would you entice valuable players that younger players could learn off to stay in club rugby and share their knowledge and skills with younger players? Pay them.
As I understand it most of these clubs are run by volunteers and largely self funded for the petrol fumes that keep them going (not unlike GAGR!). One can bitch about them not being pro-run organisations and having petty agendas, but I wonder if the ARU is ready to get what they wish for if the clubs don't survive, as the costs involved in paid replacement may be a lot more than the ARU thinks.
Clearly there's a connection from mini rugby, through school, Club, NRC, Super Rugby etc etc. It will vary, but for most players they will have a lot of development at club level either before or even during Super Rugby stint. So club is an critical link in that chain for those who go on to higher honours, and also for a lot of very good players who don't.
Shute shield has been the only FTA live rugby in Australia and the clubs have paid for it. The ARU now stepping in here (and with what strings attached?) isn't the same as supporting club rugby. It's also only $300k
Strewthcobber -
Assuming this player payment is widespread and more than a Pulver hearsay, what you've written above doesn't necessarily make sense.
What would be one of the best ways to enable a player to train like a pro and develop? Pay them.
How would you entice valuable players that younger players could learn off to stay in club rugby and share their knowledge and skills with younger players? Pay them.
As I understand it most of these clubs are run by volunteers and largely self funded for the petrol fumes that keep them going (not unlike GAGR!). One can bitch about them not being pro-run organisations and having petty agendas, but I wonder if the ARU is ready to get what they wish for if the clubs don't survive, as the costs involved in paid replacement may be a lot more than the ARU thinks.
Strewthcobber
Mark Ella (57)
As an aside, the GPS fee paying parents of nonn-rugby players who subsidise scholarships, the grounds/facilities and top coaching must be one of the most mind-bending sources of funding for underpinning of the success of the national team in any sport in any country in the entire world.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
I've mentioned this in the What is Grassroots thread, but this thread has captured the topic.
Yeah I think all Premier Clubs should receive a grant!!!!
If they do the things right.
Allot of the above is about growing kids rugby, the numbers playing it, and also the profile of rugby.
I think the Premier Clubs are well positioned and should have a responsibility in sustaining growth, and also retention - thus grant paid if they do.
http://myrugby.rugby.com.au/myrugby/ captures the required data for measuring sticks.
Increased numbers, is increased return on levy, is increased support base, is stronger foundations.
I.e.
grow junior numbers by % = $
% increase of teams playing public high school rugby = $
the better the numbers the better return on levy's. So why shouldnt clubs get a return on growth
Yeah I think all Premier Clubs should receive a grant!!!!
If they do the things right.
Allot of the above is about growing kids rugby, the numbers playing it, and also the profile of rugby.
I think the Premier Clubs are well positioned and should have a responsibility in sustaining growth, and also retention - thus grant paid if they do.
http://myrugby.rugby.com.au/myrugby/ captures the required data for measuring sticks.
Increased numbers, is increased return on levy, is increased support base, is stronger foundations.
I.e.
grow junior numbers by % = $
% increase of teams playing public high school rugby = $
the better the numbers the better return on levy's. So why shouldnt clubs get a return on growth
Who gets the grant? The junior club or the grade club whose area the junior club falls in?
Where does the money come from?
Whilst in the longer term an increase in player numbers should create an increase in revenue for the ARU it is nowhere near instant.
Where does the money come from?
Whilst in the longer term an increase in player numbers should create an increase in revenue for the ARU it is nowhere near instant.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Yep, of course a lot of our elite players went to GPS Schools......thank heavens for the GPS system.
BTW I am a product of a State high school, from back in the days when State high schools played rugby. Not many do these days. That is just a fact of life, sadly.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
The Premier Clubs get the grant. BUT.
Only if there are results.
So it is earned.
I suggest the ARU pay it, not sure who paid it previously, it maybe sponsorship.
With myrugby now in place there is a tool to measure the required.
Not all clubs may have the same requirement / target.
I'll say again it is earned from results, it is not given.
I say through being active, and involved.
Both the ARU, and NSWRU have been extremely helpful and supportive with any enquiry or need with regards to junior rugby, anyone who says otherwise is lazy. But to penetrate, be successful, open doors support is required from volunteers (clubs), if we work together and get maximum penetration we could achieve far more than expected.
All thoughts and ideas above are good - they are the 1%ers that make 100%, so yeah I look at what club rugby has done for our code over many many years and say lets work together share ideas so we grow our code.
Expect = 0
Hard work = Reward.
How do you fairly measure that though? A junior village club may thrive through the work of volunteers at that junior club. Why should the premier club in their area get money for their hard work?
This problem reared up originally because the ARU were in a hole and had to cut their discretionary expenditure.
Clearly the ARU do put money into premier rugby (either directly or through NSWRU/QRU) but the problem is when the money isn't there. Of course it will be the first thing to go.
It's a complex problem to deal with and ultimately it comes down to seeking money from the professional part of the sport which may not always be in a position to provide it.
What provides the ARU the best bang for their buck is a really difficult question to answer.
I think the point is the money is back baby, and everyone wants a slice!
Zero I believe. The NSWRU put forward to get a chunk for it from the ARU and the ARU knocked that back, setting off this whole shitfight
The Shute clubs spend $9m on rugby off their own bat
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Fair point.
Each area may have different touch points that are measured.
Wamberal mentioned High School Rugby was strong when he played - it has now sadly almost disappeared, so high school rugby could be a touch point.
It maybe measured on improvement.
It maybe measured on change in market share.
It comes down to understanding the business, and improving the weaknesses.
Our market share is down compared to other codes, I don't see worrying about our top tier (National age teams, Private Schools etc) changing that.
WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
If you're talking about bang for your buck in regards to the ARU then it's pouring money into structures that will leading to more kids playing the game. Which then leads to more fans and hopefully greater bargaining power when it comes to sponsors and broadcasters.
I admire Dave's passion for grade rugby but I just cannot see his ideal funding formula working let alone proving successful.